Sherrill and Ciattarelli want to revive NJ school choice program

Sign up for Chalkbeat Newark’s free newsletter to get the latest news about the city’s public school system delivered to your inbox.

In a race defined by radically different approaches to education, school choice may be one of the few things New Jersey’s gubernatorial candidates agree on.

Both Democrat Mikie Sherrill and Republican Jack Ciattarelli say they support expanding the state’s Interdistrict Public School Choice Program, which lets some students attend public schools outside their home district. Sherrill says the program could be used to integrate New Jersey’s persistently segregated school system, while Ciattarelli wants to pair it with a Florida-style private school voucher program.

The candidates’ focus could bring life to a program that’s been stalled for more than a decade because of lack of funding. It could also mean that Newark and other districts in Essex County might participate for the first time since the program’s inception in 1999.

There are currently 119 so-called “choice districts” and about 5,000 students who participate in the program, with another 2,500 students on a waitlist, said Wells Winegar, executive director of the New Jersey Policy Institute think tank, who worked under former Gov. Chris Christie. He added that expanding the program could help districts that are facing enrollment declines while giving families more school options.

“It was designed to help families find public schools that fit their child’s needs,” Winegar said, while providing parents “an overall kind of better environment for their child without having to pay private school tuition.”

No Essex County districts currently participate in the program as receiving districts, but if the state’s next governor provides the first serious push in years to expand it, that could change, potentially affecting Newark’s enrollment and transportation costs.

Supporters — including many from New Jersey’s Republican policy circles — say that the program helps keep kids in public schools while boosting enrollment in districts that have lost students. They also note that it gives students access to schools with stronger academic programs, art, sports, and music classes. But skeptics warn that expanding the program could worsen funding gaps and make it harder to distribute resources fairly across districts.

What is the Interdistrict School Choice Program?

The program started as a small five-year pilot in 1999, hailed by then-Republican Gov. Christie Whitman as a way to give parents more choice while improving the public school system statewide through increased “competition.”

It’s not a charter or voucher program. Instead, it allows traditional public school districts to opt-in as choice districts, opening seats to students who live outside district boundaries. Typically, choice districts have experienced declining enrollment, financial strain, or are looking for new funding to launch new programs or strengthen their academic offerings. If there are more students requesting admission to a school than there are available openings, state law requires a district to hold a lottery to determine which students are admitted.

The choice program is budgeted for $62 million, Winegar said. To fund it, the state provides the receiving district with money to cover the cost of educating the student. But paying for students isn’t the same everywhere because of differences in tax levies across cities and towns, according to Danielle Farrie, research director at the Education Law Center. The state provides categorical funding in the amount equal to the tax levy per pupil in the receiving district, Farrie added, but depending on where students are transferring to and from, the costs could add up.

“So essentially, the state is covering both sides. Normally, there’s the state and the local share. But now the state is also picking up the local share,” Farrie added.

Though the program has been around for more than two decades, there’s little data available about how it is currently working, which students are participating, and the financial impact on sending and receiving districts. As of publication, a spokesperson for the state Department of Education said they would “look into” making such data available to Chalkbeat.

A 2005 Rutgers University report on the program found it was having some positive results. Increased choice revenue allowed some participating districts to increase enrollment, hire additional staff, reduce class sizes, offer new programs, and avoid tax increases and program cuts.

Farrie, the research director at ELC, said if the program were to expand, equity should be at the forefront. Early analyses of the pilot showed that participating students were overwhelmingly white. Black and Hispanic students, as well as students with disabilities, were not served quite as well as others, the Rutgers researchers found. A few receiving districts reported that their student body became more diverse because of the program.

But to understand the impacts of the choice program and potentially, help desegregate schools as Sherrill has proposed, the state has to provide data “to analyze which students are leaving which districts, going to which districts, is that improving segregation, is making it worse by either race or income,” Farrie said.

“We don’t really have the answers to those questions right now,” Farrie added.

In 2012-13, Gov. Chris Christie’s administration capped the program at 5% growth, which some participating superintendents said left it underfunded and incapable of meeting the demand for seats.

Former Glassboro Superintendent Mark Silverstein said the state cap prevented his district from growing the program. During his tenure, about 200 students from neighboring school districts participated in the choice program. That program helped boost student achievement and strengthen academic programs, Silverstein said.

In the program’s first year, Silverstein said, the district’s valedictorian was a choice student who came from outside Glassboro.

“That’s how I thought about school choice — it provides increased academic opportunities and maybe forces districts to provide programs they would have not done,” Silverstein said.

A 2023 review of the program determined there was little evidence to say whether students’ academic experience was improved.

Because funding follows the student, sending districts lose state aid for every student who participates, as they are no longer counted in the district’s enrollment. Those districts must also pay for up to 20 miles of a student’s transportation to their new school. After 20 miles, parents must cover the cost to send their child to school, causing more concerns over who can participate, Farrie added.

“Not everyone can do that. Some people need bus stop close to their house to get around,” Farrie said.

What would expanding the school choice program do?

Supporters of the program have signaled that an expansion into Essex County could be next, and growing attention from Sherrill and Ciattarelli may make that more likely. Researchers and experts have also said expansion and an increase in funding could improve the program and allow it to serve students more equitably.

But if the program were to expand, Farrie says the state should think about providing compensation to school districts that may experience a significant enrollment loss or higher transportation costs.

In their fiscal analysis of the program, NJPI experts lay out a scenario where roughly 5% — approximately 4,230 students — in “alleged highly segregated districts” (East Orange, Irvington, Newark City, Orange City, New Brunswick, and Perth Amboy) would move into new choice districts within Middlesex and Essex counties.

That could have implications for Newark’s enrollment and funding. Newark’s enrollment is on the upswing. Over the past 5 years, Newark Public Schools have added over 7,000 students. But experts warn that expanding the choice program could strain district budgets, especially those like Newark, where state aid makes up 84% of its budget this school year.

Farrie added that if the state’s next governor chooses to expand the program, they should look at who has the opportunity to change school districts and ensure those opportunities are distributed more equitably across communities.

“If we are going to expand it, it needs to be done in a much more careful way to make sure that it’s realizing the goals of what we want New Jersey public education policy to actually look like,” Farrie added.

Jessie Gómez is a reporter for Chalkbeat Newark, covering public education in the city. Contact Jessie at jgomez@chalkbeat.org.